RC Wiki:Drivers' stand
Hi! Hey, I just made this page. Anyone out there? --Phroziac 19:41, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC) Vandalism Ugh, looks like that vandal from the very beginning of this wiki is back. Just be careful with blocks, these 172.* ips are pretty much aol, and should only be blocked 15 minutes at a time, if at all. Additionally, I have alerted others on IRC about this to help revert it. Oh, and why doesn't *ANYONE* use this page? Sign up for the mailing list too. :P --Phroziac (talk) 05:12, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) :(Cross posted to mailing list also) :I have blocked 11 /16 subnets for AOL tonight. Any more of the invstg8r style vandalism from a 172.* address authorizes a range block, just put /16 after the ip address on the block form. These blocks should all expire in two months. I am absolutely sick of this guy, and I know everyone else is also. --Phroziac (talk) 00:33, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC) Way go, Phro. I can't thank you enough. This numbskull was driving me absolutely nuts. He comes back, he goes for two months. I like this. - Lucky 6.9 02:20, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC) Just clobbered him again, this time via 192*. I think I hit a nerve with "Guido the Kneebreaker." :) - Lucky 6.9 17:40, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC) Spam via 222* I'm glad I caught that jerk, let me tell you. He didn't even post his spam to a relevant page! Things have been quiet vandalism-wise since we blocked that 'tard from AOL. One thing never fails to confuse me, though: How do we determine whether or not we're dealing with an open proxy? Some Wikipedia admins seem to know how to do it. I'm not one of them. Assuming we can figure it out if and when we get hit again, can we (a) easily determine we're dealing with an open proxy and (b) adopt the Wikipedia stance and permanently block them? Most of the random character bot edits and those truly idiotic bots where the content just echoes the title come in via IP's with no prior history. Ditto the titles I refer to as "vandal target titles." Plausible-sounding title, but filled with nonsense. Nonsense gets deleted, new nonsense arrives later via another proxy until one of us finally protects the page. Ideas, anyone? - Lucky 6.9 02:23, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Whoa, lets not go off on random vandals. that guy wasn't invst8tr. It was some IP in China (which would explain the chinese links). One time vandals like that might not even intend to be vandalizing, they may be just messing around. We should give them a warning via their talk page, and if they ignore that, then go to blocking. those weren't even malicious links. --Rustlerbum 03:41, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::I mostly agree, but linkspamming like that is malicious. They do it to give themselves higher rankings on search engines, by using our high (well...not very high) rankings. Blocking is probably not neccessary, because if they ever come back, they'll probably be on another IP. --Phroziac (talk) 14:46, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Proxies should be permanently blocked, I have no idea how to do it. Problem is that there are zillions of open proxies, and we won't come anywhere near making a dent in them. :( --Phroziac (talk) 14:46, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC) *"Curps" over at Wikipedia blocks a lot of open proxies as they come in. Not much of a problem here yet, but it's a wiki. It's inevitable. I don't think we'll get a rash of these things and we can probably just deal with them on an individual basis as they come in. The good news in all of this is the "hit count" at the bottoms of the pages I've worked on keep going up, which tells me that people really are using this as a reference site and not a playground. - Lucky 6.9 17:57, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC) **That's true. I'm not sure if those counters are high or low though. They're dumb counters, and count every hit, not just from individual IPs. But we use squid like Wikimedia, which would make them lower, since not every hit is actually hitting the wiki. *shrug* --Phroziac (talk) 16:13, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) Spammers No sooner do I unblock the "small block" and "Blackfoot" articles than the doggone spamming starts again. Both articles are protected for the time being and I've put six-month blocks on the IP's. Hopefully, these scuzzbags will get the message. - Lucky 6.9 04:22, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) :No problem from me. I'm guessing small block was being hit because of the word small in the title. lol. --Phroziac (talk) 21:21, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) New namespace? I've been thinking, for a while now, that it would be nice to have a namespace for point of view information...mostly product reviews. What do y'all think? I'd suggest calling it either POV: or Review:. --Phroziac (talk) 21:21, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) :I love it. If the site has enough traffic to justify it, we could probably get goodies from manufacturers to be tested! Great idea on the spammers, by the way. Here's hoping they're just stupid enough to take the bait. - Lucky 6.9 00:48, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::We don't have a lot of traffic at the moment, but that'd be cool for the future. I doubt they'd give us free stuff though. But I'm sure we all have a bunch of RC stuff... As for the spammers, they aren't exhuding intelligence or anything. --Phroziac (talk) 14:23, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC) *Cool! I'll write reviews for my toys. In fact, I used to do a weekly newspaper column out here. The radio station I worked for had a deal going with the paper in which I reviewed original recipes sent in by listeners and readers. I still get people asking me about that column three years after the fact. Lots of fun! - Lucky 6.9 00:30, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC) **Cool. :) So, should we call it Review:? --Phroziac (talk) 15:46, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC) ***I had Jason setup the Review: namespace. Enjoy. :) --Phroziac (talk) 04:18, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC) Those white tabs!!! Hi guys, I just popped in from Wiki 24, and I notice you have the same issue with your tabs turning white that we did a while back. Since our color schemes are almost identical, our fix will work for you guys too. If an admin here wants to fix the white tabs and other stupid not-gray things (like the Preferences page), just add the stuff from my monobook.css into the site Monobook.css. PS: Nice site. I like your bullets! --StBacchus 12:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)